so much pliew the planning department so you can ask mr. meeko if you want to expand on that. >> i just want notice -- and there are areas where office buildings and sally and just the way the zoning happens to be right now. if people are in a position it's going to be legal non conforming is there any notice they get that lets them know that? >> there is not a special notice for that. a lot of situations in this are already legal non conforming uses and in the night time entertainment they are and they're not permitted and office in the area and it's not permitted anywhere in western soma and those two uses and everybody that exists, everybody that is legal and exists are

3:31pm

probably non conforming uses. in terms of creating new non conforming uses there is none of that but a good one is the creation of pdr in bay view as well as other examples. >> i think the notice is just important because we get people at the last minute that who didn't realize this was going on because they didn't get a legal notice and people don't see things until they're in front of their faces anyway, and i guess the other question about the notification. okay. now you're going to have legal non conforming uses and some knew that but they were allowed to exist. is there like the eastern neighborhoods some amnecessity or process by which you are doing letters of determination? what is the process if you're existing legal non conforping office use and

3:32pm

now we're going to be zoning you in the sallies and making you permanently non conforming what do -- say they want add more office space what do they do? >> sure. anybody already a legal non conforming use and remain that way things basically stay the same. they can't expand today or tomorrow and maybe a little with a conditional use but can't add new use and it's funny you mentionedda that r the amesty program and it was extended and tuesday was the last day and what is front you there is no program like that proposed and no specific pipeline for grandfathered projects either eastern neighborhoods included. >> correct me if i am wrong and that was for buildings that

3:33pm

didn't have permits. it's a different situation. >> that's true. >> they can legally proceed. >> yes. that means they got the legal approvals at the time they went in and the zoning changed after the fact that made them no longer legal and the legitimate program and programs that could have gotten the approval you but didn't get them or maybe didn't pay the impact fees and couldn't legalize under the zoning and maybe went to another one and office was not permitted and gave them an opportunity when originally going in -- >> like the areas with the old sli was more vague. it was fairly permissive if i remember correctly than the sally was? no? >> not really. in terms of offices and housing under the

3:34pm

sli there are two small ways to get that so for housing only if 100% affordable housing and for the other one is work space for design professionals and narrow and have to be on the third floor or above and certain feet and it's prescriptive and i don't know anyone that took advantage of it. >> i am just wondering and i know there are offices -- >> yeah and some went in before and some did not. >> and in the case of this gentleman talking about his housing project since he filed the application previously how is that treated? does he pay a fee? i mean is that

3:35pm

grandfathered in? >> generally if there is no grandfathered provision added it's subject to the law when gets required entitlement or when it's issued and we will look into that specifically more but if they have it and not issued -- if it got rezoned and theoretically couldn't move forward unless the grandfatherrerring was in place. >> i guess in context and mentioned it and in the context of 11th street and maybe you could discuss options with 11th street and how that would work and in terms of what is actually out there, in terms of what people are proposing. that

3:36pm

would be useful. thanks. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you and talk about this 11th street corridor and i earlier stated my preference for what i believe is wmuo which is option 3b and one of the reasons it would also allow office and presumably allow retail in that area which contributes to day time uses that would help the vitality of the area because if you have a lot of entertainment uses typically clubs they don't come into play until late at night and allowing some office and retail and day time commercial things would keep the district moving throughout the day too. we had a discussion while we were having a break there on the gas lamp in san diego and -- i'm not trying to hint this is what we're looking

3:37pm

to create here but they do have an area where a concentration of dining establishments and some clubs are easily walkable because you often have to be cabbing from one part of san francisco to another to go to different scplais and we have a lot of walkable areas and like san diego there are few walkable areas and why it's concentrated there. the other question i had and somebody brought this up. is there any call for metering and housing? i think we may have asked that last week and i was assured there wasn't but somebody brought that up. >> in the plan, in the area plan that would be adopted in the general plan there is a policy that says that we should establish a community stabilization policy that attempts -- i am paraphrasing

3:38pm

and affordable housing afford and jobs and it's about that balance. separate from the plan the task force adopted a specific policy and mechanisms how you would achieve that goal and that included what people call metering which is essentially -- if the area fell out of balance then market rate housing is held up until that balance is restored either through publicly developed affordable housing or higher amounts of affordable housing in the private projects. that specific policy is not part of the planning code amendments that are in front of you now. that is pulled out separate and that whole issue of metering and how to implement such a policy will be trailing legislation. >> yeah, that's the other problem we may pass something that sounds reasonable as you described and then gets in the hands of the supervisors and

3:39pm

somebody decides with trailing legislation and happened with market octavia and other plans and even rincon hill changed from the time we approved it and in my estimation less desirable and i guess we can't control that but get it out to the public and there is treatment of certain housing and i don't think we should be in doing. >> just to be clear. the plan is there was separate legislation on the policy that includes metering and as separate legislation that comes back in front of the planning commission. >> good. >> commissioner moore. >> i think it's very important that we talk about the 11th street corridor. i just want to make sure we spend equal time talking about the benefit of the plan which we haven't much talked about. from this

3:40pm

anything goes i don't care where it is south of market a few years ago. these are 14 residential enclaves we're trying to pull together as a neighborhood and that is implied in the western soma area plan with attempt to create a main street that focused on folsom street and attempt to bring neighborhood commercial and other mix of uses rather than mixed use and that is a big distinction in planning language. i think there is variety for many. i would be amiss to say i don't want to just shift the emphasis on talking about the 11 eth corridor but we are well advised and one thing the plan needs from us opportunitys are focused on the parts of the plan which are the

3:41pm

most transformative part locationally and that is finding uses that kind of are build and realized within the heart of the community and spin off effect of new facilities be commercial, be community serving or whatever they maybe, or open space and street improvements benefit everybody. you have a rather large area and 14 residential enclaves and i counted them quickly and perhaps 15 that are quite far apart so to create synergy and support in a area and little islands floating in an area of others i think we need to support the formation and kind of ground breaks pieces for the neighborhood and i am prepared to discuss the issues of the 11th street corridor but i hope the commission focuses

3:42pm

the parts of the plan in front of us. i think the plan is strong. i think mr. teague is doing a phenomenal job of carrying it forward for someone who worked on it before and i feel really good about how the department is handling it, and i would hope that we can spread our attention far and wide enough to look at the whole piece. >> if that's all commissioners we can conclude that item and move on to item 13. 340 fremont street under planning code sections for the theoriesation of change in conditions of approval. be presented by cory

3:43pm

teague. >> good afternoon president fong and commissioners. cory teague staff. this is a request for extension for 340 fremont street which you heard informational update earlier today. the planning commission approved this project in june 2006 to demolish the existing buildings and develop 400-foot tall building, 290,000 square feet and 332 dwelling units and parking spaces. no changes are proposed to the original project as it was originally approved other than the erks terior design changes and other minor alterations that were presented to you earlier today. there were multiple extensions

3:44pm

granted in the past and rincon hill it was required to come back every year and they're back before you again for another extension and in regards to public comment the department did receive one letter of opposition from a neighbor that did not support the extension. it is important to know that the project sponsors have a permit on file and recently filed in august revisions to that permit to match the design that you saw earlier, and those permits are currently under review by the planning department. in order for the project to proceed the commission must grant the extension request for another 12 months after the day of the expiration of the last project approval. that would put the next date november 13, 2013. this project does comply with all of the requirements of planning code and the general

3:45pm

plan. it is consistent with rincon hill plan and provide significant number of dwelling units to the city and the building permits are up-to-date and under review and the department recommends approval of the extension request. >> thank you. project sponsor. >> okay. good afternoon president fong and planning commissioners. i am ezra mercy and representing jackson pacific and art stone who collectively are the sponsor and developer for 340 fremont street. as mr. teague mentioned 340 fremont is approved residential project consisting of 348 apartments and 269 parking spaces and code complying 400-foot tower. there is no change in ownership. the

3:46pm

same sponsor remains in place and we look forward to going forward with construction next year and we our 2005 site ap was supplemented in august and provide the documents for construction. we demonstrate our commitment to the plan and we look forward to a groundbreaking next year. the rincon plan adopted in 2006 will transform the area into a mix use downtown neighborhood with significant housing presence and provide range of services and amenities that support urban living and set the stage for rincon hill to be home to 10,000 resident s. the plan shows why

3:47pm

it's a high priority site and containing large parcels that could accommodate significant high density housing. another factor is the proximity to transit and a neighborhood within five minutes of the downtown financial district and access to public and regional transit and finally major changes in the downtown landscape ranging from the removal of the embarcadero freeway and the anticipated compleeg of the trans bay terminal combine to make the vision even more compelling. through the course of 2005-2006 and 2007 we completed significant planning work and the approval process represented approximately 24 months of effort by our team working closely with planning staff. by late 2007 the sponsor had invested over $4 million in soft

3:48pm

costs plus land acquisition of $18.5 million various other holding costs. like many other projects around the city the sharp economic downturn forced our project to be put on hold. however as we reported to you last year the rental apartment market has recovered sufficient strength to allow this project to move forward. during 2012 we made substantial investment in order to finalize the design and documents so it's ready for construction. we have enhanced building design and excited to see realized and as we speak construction documents move forward for estimated mid-2013 groundbreaking. the construction will make a significant contribution to the housing stock of san francisco, a major investment in the local economic recovery, and the

3:49pm

substantial expansion of the new job creation within the city. art stone and jackson pacific are excited to be part of this new neighborhood and in conclusion we are requesting that the planning commission grant 340 fremont the one year approval extension. we look forward to construction starting in 2013. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none commissioner moore. >> mr. teague, i have a question. assuming that the commission is considering extension wouldn't the number of dwelling units be changed to 348 and parking to 269 to match what was presented today? >> that's a good question. the extension is proposed for the

3:50pm

project as approved. every project that is approved has condition of approval that basically says major changes can occur as long as in general conformity with what was originally proposed and determined by the zoning administrator, his review of the project, so the difference that you're referring to is that difference that can occur what is entitled and what is actually built and not a request to change the original approval to meet those exact parameters. >> i need to make a comment here and the comment has something to do with the fact that this project has been on the books for some some time and the major change that occurred when it was first approved and where we are today is indeed the implementation and approval of the transit center which is key to changing the environment

3:51pm

surrounding parking by reducing the parking and suggested at the moment we're getting more into a .7 and consider generically as and that we look carefully at holding the developer to parking reduction because of the situation that we really want to commit to further use of transit and fewer cars in the area and i have to say it because i think philosophy how we look at this district has changed so it's kind of a give

3:52pm

and takei am -- i am fine with the plan and the increase and correct me if it's the other way and that's within the parameters here and that remains up to the discretion of the developer if things and i don't think there is reason to believe it's the older project but what was pointed out before us is the original project because it has

3:53pm

the flexibility to do that and the other thing -- this should have been brought up during the earlier hearing, but one other thing that might be advisable and i don't know if i saw it in the plans but i'm not sure if there are plans for retail in this particular structure. i think we mainly have townhouses on the ground floor but hopefully within the rincon hill footprint of all the different towers approved and built there are some that will contain a little bit of retail and one of the easiest ways for people not to move the cars around is if they can go to the cleaners or grab a bite to eat or get their hair done on the hill it would make things easier. i'm not saying it's up to this project but we have to look at that as we move forward with fremont street and the rest of the

3:54pm

buildings that are in the rincon hill plan>> commissioner moore. >> do you see that as a problem and that comment as part. extension of this project. i believe we need to describe the changing circumstances and the project and redesign and responsive to what the planning department is asking for. i am particularly interested there is a comment that we will continue to support increase in units but we are looking for a potential lowering of parking [inaudible] >> i'm not going to attempt to legal answer which mr. genius could probably provide. we're in the process of construction documents that allow for the

3:55pm

number of parking spaces that are specified. the only way that we could increase the parking count practically speaking would be to excavate another 15 or 20 feet and build a fourth level below grade. that would be an exceedingly costly and time consuming solution which i submit our plans as evidence we considered long ago and elected not to pursue. on behalf of both partners i think of course we can only carefully and respectfully note your philosophical statement. i don't know if you're asking us to formally create a sublimit in the approval as a condition of the extension which i probably

3:56pm

don't have the authority to do on the spot without consulting art stone. >> probably not. i just want to make sure that as other projects which of dormant for a long time come forward i want the major planning rules of this city reflected in giving extensions but always recognizing changed circumstances and i think that we need to do that in order to fully commit the transformation of the city through these major moves. >> commissioner moore i am noting openly and carefully about the change of circumstances of downtown and your philosophical view about parking. >> and i think he will be facilitated to make that happen. no other questions. >> commissioner there is a motion and a second to approve

3:57pm

with conditions. >> and just to be certain i didn't hear any modifications. commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. commissioner. >> commission president fong. >> aye. >> that passes unanimously. next is case 14 at 2001 3rd street. request for conditional use theoriesation. >> good afternoon commissioners. i am michelle from the planning staff. this is a conditional use permit from at&t to install a facility at 200130 and at mariposa and 3rd street. at&t proposes instillation up to nine an ten'ss and

3:58pm

mounted on the screen and match the existing building and minimally visible and there is one on the northwest corner that will be removed as part of this project this is preferred location site. staff received 25 emails and opposed to the project based on health concerns. impact on the property and visibility of the project and blocked views and request for additional information. in response to that at&t arranged a another meeting this week and give information on the proposed project. staff has received four letters in support of the project and i am available for questions if needed. thank you. >> project sponsor.

3:59pm

>> good afternoon president fong, members of the commission. i am teddy and director of external affairs for at&t california. i am joined by the company who conducted the radio test and information included in the packets and with carolyn berry and project manager for this project. we are seeking your approval on the conditional use permit application for a nine panel site to be placed at 2001 3rd street. approval of this permit will not only allow us to construct this new facility but enable us to decommission a omni directional one elected at mayor's office posa and 3rd street.